IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

242 (02 cases) CWP-24594-2014 Date of Decision :05.03.2025 Jasbir Singh ...Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda and another ...Respondents CWP-25777-2014 Balwinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Arihant Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner(s)

(in both the writ petitions).

Mr. Y.P. Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2.

* * *

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. By this common order, above mentioned two writ petitions, the details of which are mentioned at the heading are being decided as both the petitions involve the same question of law on similar facts.

2. For the purpose of this order, facts are being taking from CWP-

24594-2014 titled as Jasbir Singh vs. Pressing Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda.

3. In the present petition, the grievance being raised by the petitioner-Workman is that while the petitioner-Workman was working with the respondent-Corporation from the year 1985 as a Sales Assistant-cum- Store Keeper, his services were terminated from 11.07.1986 by respondent No.2 and by the said date, the petitioner-Workman had already worked for more than 240 days and while terminating the services of the petitioner- Workman, Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, ‘1947 Act’) was not complied with hence, the order dated 11.07.1986 terminating the services of the petitioner-Workman by respondent No.2 was challenged before the Labour Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Workman submits that vide award dated 04.09.1990 (Annexure P/1) by the Labour Court, the termination order dated 11.09.1986 was held to be bad and the petitioner- Workman was directed to be reinstated in service along with full back wages.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Workman submits that though, the petitioner-Workman was reinstated and joined service on 09.04.1991 in compliance of the award dated 04.09.1990 (Annexure P/1) by Labour Court but for the period the petitioner-Workman remained out of service i.e. from July, 1986 till 1991, the benefit of increment was not granted, which is causing prejudice to the petitioner-Workman. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Workman submits that as the award dated 04.09.1990 was not complied with in letter and spirit, further the petitioner-

Workman filed an application dated 19.05.2008 (Annexure P/7) under Section 33-C(2) of the 1947 Act to the respondent No.1 for the implementation of the award dated 04.09.1990 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Labour Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Workman further submits that the aforementioned application was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal only on the ground that after passing of the award dated 04.09.1990 (Annexure P/1), the respondent-Corporation passed an order dated 06.01.2000 (Annexure P/6) denying the benefit of increment to the petitioner-workman, which order was not challenged by the petitioner- workman. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Workman argues that once, a benefit for reinstatement has been granted to the petitioner-workman under the award of the Labour Court which has attained finality, any order passed contrary to the said award, will not take away the right of the petitioner- workman to claim the benefit of increment under the award and hence, the Industrial Tribunal while adjudicating the application under Section 33-C(2) of the 1947 Act should have only decided the entitlement under the award dated 04.09.1990 (Annexure P/1) rather than basing the award dated 20.01.2014 (Annexure P/8) to deny the benefit only on the ground that order dated 06.01.2000 (Annexure P/6) passed by the respondent No.2 was not challenged by the petitioner-Workman.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that once keeping in view the fact that award dated 04.09.1990 (Annexure P/1) was implemented and the petitioner-Workman